> > Neat. Was the 15-bit version for 81 values or 361? At the risk of > > putting my foot in my mouth, I don't think there exist 361 15-bit > > numbers that satisfy minimum requirements (if the floating-point > > average of any four code values is a code value, then the four code > > values are identical). > > It was 361 values. So either you are wrong or I have a bug. I > probably have a bug. Here's the list. If it violates the rules, > please let me know.
Yep, I think I had a bug. I just removed an optimization that I thought was valid and now I'm getting smaller lists. So I guess it was not valid. Let me see how small I can get the numbers without that optimization... _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
